brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/09/84)
[] >As if we needed MORE evidence that Brunson was Ken Arndt in disguise. It >seems, to Mr. Brunson, that one needs to "prove" one's "legitimacy" as a >human being before one is to be "accepted" (by whom?). Blacks and other >minorities have worked hard and long to do this, and this validates them >(their hands have been stamped, apparently) as real human beings in Brunson's >eyes. This bears no relationship whatsoever to anything I have said. > But because of preconceptions that Brunson has, apparently no amount >of effort would validate homosexuals in his eyes. For the N+1th time, the >goal of social progress is NOT to validate groups of people on a case by case >basis (which is what has been REQUIRED over the years) but rather to seek the >ultimate goal that EVERYONE is entitled to equivalent treatment and rights as >human beings. For the N+2nd time: There are two parties involved in the proposed civil suit. One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual. The Bible- believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning tolerance. In his mind homosexuals are, in a sense, criminals. That is, people who have forfeited their rights by their objectionable behavior. (You are aware that thieves, for example, forfeit their rights? Or should they not be "discriminated" against either?). You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind. He WILL NOT HIRE the homosexual. That's all there is to it. Arguments concerning the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant. The only question is this: who should win the suit? Who should be vindicated and who should be condemned. There is no *nice-guy* way to handle the problem. There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about this" approach left. The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible- believer refuses to change. All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!??? For the N+2nd time: who should win the suit *AND WHY*? -- David Brunson, making the net a more *decent* place to raise a family
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/09/84)
[] >>The values of most respondents say that intolerance of those who >>commit sexual sins is a great evil. > >No, Mr. Brunson, you seem to be missing a very fundamental point. It is >not that your opponents say that intolerance of those who "commit sins" >is a great "evil". It is simply that they are not playing your game. > >You are still standing in front of the big tree with your eyes closed, >counting to 100, while all the other boys and girls have gone home to >supper. You are so caught up in your smug little game of "Sinners-n- >Saints" that you fail to realize that it is merely your own personal >hallucination. (How else to describe mumbling to invisible creatures, >babbling about perforated spooks, and the suchlike?) "game"? How about your little word game here? The SUBSTANCE of the issue, once again, is that either a homosexual, or an otherwise law-abiding citizen who discriminates against homosexuals, WILL BE PUNISHED. The moral question before us is: who should it be? When will you get tired of your cutsie little imaginings and get to the subject? Why do you insist on continuing to bore us with your purely imaginary characterizations of people who would discriminate against homosexuals? They are IRRELEVANT to the issue. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???!!? How many times do I have to say this before people will get to the subject? Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* >Let us hark back to one of your earlier scenarios: Suppose you came to >me for a job. You seemed well qualified, but during the course of our >interview it bacame obvious to me that you had these bizzare religious >inclinations. Perhaps it was because you wore some medallion, or because >of some phrase you let slip in the course of conversation. No matter. >Now, of course I would not hire you. Qualifications or no, one cannot >afford to take chances with this sort of pernicious dementia. Non- >descrimination clauses and tolerance are all well and good, but surely >one must draw the line somewhere. This sort of mental instability could >actually endanger the lives of the other employees. <29 more similar lines> >It's curious, Mr. Brunson, that you started out by defending your right >to refuse to hire someone. Why didn't you start out by defending someone >else's right to refuse to hire you? I would be interested to hear you >argue for my right to refuse to sell you my house because of your >religious hysteria. It's really in your best interest, after all. I >know that it's not really solving your problems, but at least I'm not >adding to them by letting you fall into the complacent perception that >there's nothing wrong with you. Besides, how else can you be made to >see the error of your ways? Perhaps something a little more physical? I have already stated on two occasions very clearly, very plainly, with absolutely NO MARGIN FOR MISINTERPRETATION that I have no problem WHATSOEVER with you discriminating against me. That means not selling me a house, denying me a job, firing me, refusing to do business with me. That means that I will not take you to court over it even though under present law I could. As for the "something more physical" part: that is and should remain illegal. >The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a >pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own rightousness. The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own banality. -- David Brunson, at your service
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/09/84)
In article <usfbobo.215> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes: > >Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE >TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. >THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, >Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY >WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN >AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* I'll bite. Given that the homosexual (it could also be any person, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Atheist, Bahai, heterosexual or any-other-sexual you can imagine) does not disrupt work by bringing their personal ideosyncracies into the workplace, then they should win the suit. Simple enough? The funny thing, Brunson, is that you probably have non-heterosexuals (interesting word) working for you now, or will have them working for you in the future and you won't know it. I'd also guess that there are lots of people you'd refuse to hire thinking they were gay who, in fact, are not. It's ironic that you aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of honesty. (Unless, of course, you're given to creeping and peeping around folks bedrooms at night in which case you are definitely due for a spell in the slammer.) -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (11/09/84)
> [David Brunson:] > Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE > TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. > THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, > Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY > WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN > AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* To answer your question, the person who refuses to hire homosexuals should lose, and the homosexual should win. "Should" means that, in my opinion, this is what I believe is more just. The problem is that the employer wishes to hire only people who he/she is comfortable having around, while the person looking for work wishes to have access to any job based only on their ability, not the personal preferences of the employer. I believe that it is more important for the employee to be protected from discrimination than it is for the employer to be allowed to discriminate. > I have already stated on two occasions very clearly, very plainly, with > absolutely NO MARGIN FOR MISINTERPRETATION that I have no problem WHATSOEVER > with you discriminating against me. That means not selling me a house, denying > me a job, firing me, refusing to do business with me. That means that I will > not take you to court over it even though under present law I could. Ok, so you disagree with me.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/10/84)
[] It occured to me that the following paragraph will be misunderstood. I will clarify it in advance: >[Me]: >You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind. He WILL NOT >HIRE the homosexual. That's all there is to it. Arguments concerning >the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant. The only >question is this: who should win the suit? Who should be vindicated >and who should be condemned. There is no *nice-guy* way to >handle the problem. There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about >this" approach left. The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible- >believer refuses to change. All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT. >DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!??? The fact that it is a Bible believer who is the discriminator is irrelevant. When I say "Bible believer" most people will assume that I mean a Jerry-Falwell- Christian-Fundamentalist-Inerrancy-of-the-Scriptures-Prayer-in-Public-Schools- Let's-Return-This-to-a-Christian-America-and-Beat-up-all-the-Gays-Blacks-and- Jews-and-Tell-Little-Children-that-they-Will-Die-And-Go-To-Hell-Unless-They- Accept-Jesus-Into-Their-Hearts-And-Wear-A-Cross-Around-Their-Necks-And- Picket-Abortion-Clinics-And-Vote-For-Ronald-Reagan kind of guy. Make him a Jew or Moslem or Atheist or whatever you like. Also the statement "Arguments concerning the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant" is not correct. What I meant to say is that the dis- criminator's motives are irrelevant. That is, when you ask him the question, "Oh come now, let's talk about this. Why do you want to discriminate against this harmless homosexual?", anything that he says to defend his position is independent of the moral question before the house, which is, once again, >For the N+2nd time: who should win the suit *AND WHY*? -- David Brunson Peace Through Strength
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (11/13/84)
> > But because of preconceptions that Brunson has, apparently no amount > >of effort would validate homosexuals in his eyes. For the N+1th time, the > >goal of social progress is NOT to validate groups of people on a case by case > >basis (which is what has been REQUIRED over the years) but rather to seek the > >ultimate goal that EVERYONE is entitled to equivalent treatment and rights as > >human beings. > > For the N+2nd time: There are two parties involved in the proposed civil > suit. One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who > adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual. The Bible- > believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning > tolerance. In his mind homosexuals are, in a sense, criminals. That is, > people who have forfeited their rights by their objectionable behavior. > (You are aware that thieves, for example, forfeit their rights? Or should > they not be "discriminated" against either?). Some person may refuse to accept the arguments of society that smashing the windows of other peoples' cars is not a good thing to do. In their mind, the people who attempt to stop them from doing this are infringing on their rights. My response? Tough. Just because Bible-believing citizens don't like gays doesn't mean we have to honor their views. Just because they think gays are, in a sense, criminals doesn't mean they are criminals. > You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind. He WILL NOT > HIRE the homosexual. That's all there is to it. Arguments concerning > the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant. The only > question is this: who should win the suit? Who should be vindicated > and who should be condemned. There is no *nice-guy* way to > handle the problem. There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about > this" approach left. The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible- > believer refuses to change. All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT. > DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!??? > > For the N+2nd time: who should win the suit *AND WHY*? Well, one thing I understand is that if you don't have anything worthwhile to say, saying it at 150dB doesn't make it any more worthwhile. Fine. Nobody will change your mind. I hope you realize that by abjuring reason, you've probably blown your chances of changing anybody else's mind. Indeed, there is no "nice-guy" way to handle the problem. Society either has to be nasty to the "Bible believers" or to gays. I think it should be nasty to the "Bible believers". Their actions directly and provably harm gays. The gays' actions can only be shown to harm other people by swallowing the "Bible believers'" anti-gay line hook, line, and sinker. I operate - and most of the people arguing the pro-gay position operate - on the principle that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm other people is *immoral*. That's right, immoral. We don't pussyfoot around here; I'll pull out the tough expletives and use them here. Therefore the gay should win the suit, and the "Bible believer" should be condemned. OK. You probably dislike this conclusion. Either 1) you have a *purely* rational argument against it ("gays are doing themselves and others harm because their action is a sin" don't cut it) - in which case, please present it or 2) you dislike it because it disagrees with a strongly- but not rationally-held conviction of yours - in which case, you are probably turning more people against you than you are convincing to support you, and you are making a public nuisance out of yourself, so stop it. > > David Brunson, making the net a more *decent* place to raise a family Bullshit. In your ideal world, I'd seriously consider getting my tubes cut. I'd not want to subject any child of mine to a world in which people who disagreed with their values, without being demonstratably and objectively harmed by the consequences of those values, could enforce their judgements against their ways of life. Gays *are* demonstratably and objectively harmed by employment discrimination - it's hard to live without eating, and it's hard to eat without being able to afford your food, and it's hard to be able to afford food without getting paid by an employer. If your intent is to disrupt net.motss, you've certainly succeeded. If your intent is to make people aware of your plight, and sympathetic to it, I suspect you've failed. If that is your intent, please don't annoy us with further postings; it might prompt us to work harder against political candidates who support your view, and leave you more isolated than before. (Hmmm... maybe discrimination against what you call "Bible believers" is good for them, as they're hurting themselves by their sins against humanity...) Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
richard@apple.UUCP (Richard Johnson) (11/14/84)
[lick me until I disappear]
Naw, Brunson isn't Arndt in disguise. Arndt exhibited some degree of
intelligence on occasion. He read journals and periodicals and impressed
some of us with his facts and made others of us wonder why he reads so much
about homosexuals. Brunson would seem to think the bible (I refuse to
capitalize the word) is the ONLY book around. And quite frankly, Brunson
doesn't sound the least bit intelligent. I hope that he isn't raising a family,
'cause the world doesn't need more bible-thumping morons. So, David dear, if
you REALLY want to make the net a decent place to raise a family, don't litter
it with your prehistoric ideas and teachings. But DO teach your kids to read.
After all, your book clearly would like you to love all your fellow mankind,
regardless of our differences. You, it would seem, haven't read that part yet.
Richard Johnson [nsc|mtxinu|voder]!apple!richard
richard%apple@csnet-relay
"tired of standing round throwing punches at the moon"arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/14/84)
>> For the N+2nd time: There are two parties involved in the proposed civil >> suit. One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who >> adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual. The Bible- >> believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning >> tolerance... > > Just because Bible-believing citizens >don't like gays doesn't mean we have to honor their views. > > [ other similar phrases by both authors ] I made this point in an earlier article, and the absence of such phrases made be believe I had been successful. I suppose it is more likely that my message didn't get out. I do not know of any Christian who does not believe in the Bible. However, many Christians I know do not consider homosexuals criminals, do not believe in disciminating against them, do not believe they are sick and need to be reformed. Some Christians I know are gay, and are comfortable with their God. The fact is that very few generalizations can be made about believers in the Bible. There are very peaceful and quiet believers and there are agressive (even violent) and missionary believers, and everything in between (and beyond) these endpoints. The problem with making (and accepting) such generalizations is that you have to then invent some word or phrase which describes the Christians not covered by Dave Brunson's (or whoever's) Bible beliefs. Try and convince the gay congregations (there are several in this country) that they are not Bible believers, and that they should be called "Bible-nonbelievers". Good luck. Until you do, please do not use such phrases. Ken Arnold
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/16/84)
> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) > Subject: re: "Gay Rights" > Message-ID: <215@usfbobo.UUCP> > Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 22:59:09 EST > Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE > TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. > THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, > Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY > WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN > AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* I don't think you have the right to get so upset about people who assumed that you were posing a religious question -- at the very least, your original posting (remember, the one with the patronizing references to Jews, and how you would derive spiritual brownie points by hiring one) was so poorly worded that most respondents felt you were trying to set your religious beliefs above the law. Now you say, though, that your claim is simply that gays ought not be a protected class under the law. You seem to be going a step further, and implying that while (some classes of) disrimination are wrong, the law should not provide any protection at all. Neither of those propositions is inherently indefensible; indeed, many libertarians advocate the latter as an all-encompassing general policy. As a card-carrying liberal (I'm a member of the ACLU...), I strongly disagree. I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well. In practice (and probably as a matter of principle), explicit legal protection is extended only to those groups where there exists a proven history of massive discrimination -- i.e., against blacks, religious minorities, women, etc. Given the widespread homophobia in our society, and many explicit calls that gays should not be hired, I therefore claim that sexual preference should be a protected class under the applicable civil rights statutes. --Steve Bellovin P.S. Given that the premise of the argument is now apparently political instead of religious, I've cross-posted this to net.politics. Future discussion should probably not take place in net.religion....
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/16/84)
> Naw, Brunson isn't Arndt in disguise. Arndt exhibited some degree of > intelligence on occasion. He read journals and periodicals and impressed > some of us with his facts and made others of us wonder why he reads so much > about homosexuals. If quoting random statistics and journals is to be thought of as evidence of intelligence (or as evidence of having something reasonable to say), then it's no wonder certain people get elected to high office. Arndt may be "flashy" in that he shows people the TRAPPINGS of intelligence and reason, but if that alone gives the impression that he really IS intelligent or that he actually has something important to say, then perhaps he's well suited to go into advertising (or more likely propaganda). Don't let people like Arndt or Brunson or Bickford snow you. Look what the Germans got when they fell for it. Look what we're getting. If they produce random quotings of "authorities" instead of facts, if they can't justify their own requests for justification by others, if the sum and total of all their logic is a ridiculous emotional appeal designed to make you believe notions that have no logical basis in fact, then just ignore them. Or else point them out for what they are. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/18/84)
[] reply to comments from Steve Bellovin We finally seem to be making some progress here. First let me take care of some small business which I hope won't start another round of tangents. >P.S. Given that the premise of the argument is now apparently political >instead of religious, I've cross-posted this to net.politics. Future >discussion should probably not take place in net.religion.... I quote the stated purpose of net.religion: "net.religion: Religious, ethical, and moral implications of actions." By this statement the "Gay Rights" discussion is one of the very *few* appropriate discussions happening in net.religion. I am asking a moral question. A question of right and wrong. I don't know how I could have worded the question any more clearly and I don't see why I am still being misunderstood. A question of judgement has been proposed. I am asking people to comment on the "ethical and moral implications" of this judgement. >I don't think you have the right to get so upset about people who assumed >that you were posing a religious question -- at the very least, your original >posting (remember, the one with the patronizing references to Jews, and how >you would derive spiritual brownie points by hiring one) was so poorly >worded that most respondents felt you were trying to set your religious >beliefs above the law. Now you say, though, that your claim is simply that >gays ought not be a protected class under the law. You seem to be going >a step further, and implying that while (some classes of) disrimination are >wrong, the law should not provide any protection at all. As far as I know my only major error so far was an early attempt at arguing that homosexuals are invalid as a minority because they can change their behavior. Many people correctly jumped on that. I don't care to defend my "poorly worded" posting because that could easily get us off the subject. Let's just drop it. As for the last sentence, you have misunderstood my meaning. But that is a tangential point and you show promising signs of addressing the important issue in the next paragraph: >As a card-carrying liberal (I'm a member of the ACLU...), I strongly >disagree. I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal >to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job >is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well. First of all, let me congratulate you on your membership in the ACLU. They do a lot of good things. Let me further congratulate you on your second sentence: "any refusal to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job is *morally* wrong..." You just said the magic words! Now, can you explain yourself here in more depth? Why is it *morally* wrong to refuse to hire someone? Please understand that I am not being obtuse. The statement may seem perfectly obvious to you, but it is entirely alien to me. I can easily imagine scenarios where it *could* be morally wrong to refuse hiring, but to make hiring a universal moral principle strikes me as an odd proposal. It seems to me that you must be making some assumption about how the world works which I don't share and that you take for granted. If you could explain your statement in more depth maybe we could find it. A general note: let's all be careful to stick to the issue. We are trying to learn about the code of morality that proponents of "Gay Rights" initiatives subscribe to. -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/18/84)
re: >From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) >Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss >Subject: re: "Gay Rights" >Message-ID: <238@rlgvax.UUCP> > Indeed, >there is no "nice-guy" way to handle the problem. Society either has to >be nasty to the "Bible believers" or to gays. I think it should be nasty >to the "Bible believers". Their actions directly and provably harm gays. >The gays' actions can only be shown to harm other people by swallowing >the "Bible believers'" anti-gay line hook, line, and sinker. I operate - >and most of the people arguing the pro-gay position operate - on the principle >that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm >other people is *immoral*. That's right, immoral. We don't pussyfoot around >here; I'll pull out the tough expletives and use them here. Therefore the >gay should win the suit, and the "Bible believer" should be condemned. Alright! Now we're getting somewhere! People are *finally* beginning to speak the right language! So now we have "the principle that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm other people is *immoral*." Without commenting on the validity of this as a universal principle, I don't see how I am violating it by refusing you a job. By refusing you a job, I am simply not allowing you in my *community*, or sphere of influence. You are free to go somewhere else and do as you please. > Gays *are* demonstratably and objectively harmed >by employment discrimination - it's hard to live without eating, and it's >hard to eat without being able to afford your food, and it's hard to be >able to afford food without getting paid by an employer. There seems to be some unstated moral principle behind this statement. You seem to be saying that an employer is morally *obligated* to hire you. Why? What is your universal moral principle in this case? -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/18/84)
=================
... I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal
to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job
is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well.
...
--Steve Bellovin
=================
At first sight, this claim seems obviously correct, but when you look
a little deeper, you find that it is hard to determine what are the
bounds on "ability to do the job". If the presence of a heavy smoker
(good at the job) impairs the ability of a co-worker to do the job,
is this grounds for at least separating the two, or perhaps to not
hire the smoker? The overall efficiency of the company may be reduced
as compared to hiring an equally able non-smoker. Now carry this over
to psychological (and many would say unrealistic) ill effects caused
by prejudice. Where do you draw the line? If someone gets very
irritated every time he sees a white person working nearby, and therefore
cannot function properly in the presence of a white co-worker, is this
reason for the firm not to hire whites? If someone gets so turned-on
by a pretty woman that he can't work properly, is it a reason not to
hire women? Somewhere, there is a boundary between reasonable and
ridiculous, but simple "ability to do the job" cannot be the place.
I don't know where I would put it, but for me it would probably be
reasonable not to hire a particuarly abrasive person for work in
a close-knit team, or a heavy smoker for work in a close environment.
But then, I don't worry about people's sexual preferences or skin
colour, but I do worry about getting upset by smoke or interpersonal
agression.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtscott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/25/84)
In article <> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >================= >... I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal >to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job >is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well. >... > > --Steve Bellovin >================= >At first sight, this claim seems obviously correct, but when you look >a little deeper, you find that it is hard to determine what are the >bounds on "ability to do the job". If the presence of a heavy smoker >(good at the job) impairs the ability of a co-worker to do the job, >is this grounds for at least separating the two, or perhaps to not >hire the smoker? The overall efficiency of the company may be reduced >as compared to hiring an equally able non-smoker. Now carry this over >to psychological (and many would say unrealistic) ill effects caused >by prejudice. Where do you draw the line? It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. Lets cure the disease and not the symptom. I agree that people have been unfairly discriminated against for whatever reason, but that doesn't give us the right to discriminate against employers. Why should someone have to hire someone they don't like? For whatever reason. Golly, Why would you want to go to work for someone who didn't like you? There are generally two ways to get people to do things. You can force them, in which case they don't to a good job and you waste a lot of energy policeing them, or you can make whatevery it is you want them to do economical, and make it uneconomical for them not to. So now the question becomes: How do we make it uneconomical to descriminate on the basis of sex, creed, religion, ...? Not just employers, but everyone. This is a much more challenging problem. Primarily because it already is uneconomical! (anyone who blindly descriminates for whatever reasons may be missing a good thing, if they spend the time to get rid of the person while a competitor does not then they will have a higher overhead, etc) The problem is that it is not uneconomical enough, or at least the social perception of it isn't there. The problem is that the society at large agrees with the sterotypes behind the discrimination. To fix anything else will only obscure the real problem and make things worse in the long run. The law you think should "probably" exist does in various forms and it is one of the reasons the original problem still exists. Get it? Scott Bryan
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (11/27/84)
> Golly, Why would you want to go to work for someone who didn't like you?
For almost exactly the same reasons you'd go to work for someone who
likes you.
--
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA